Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of quantitative parametric analysis for characterization of breast lesions in contrast-enhanced MR mammography

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our aim was to evaluate quantitative parametric analysis for characterization of breast lesions in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) mammography. In 62 patients, contrast-enhanced MR mammography revealed 75 suspicious lesions, of which 18 were benign and 57 were malignant. The quantitative parametric analysis delineates signal intensity changes of contrast-enhanced lesions on a pixel-by-pixel basis. The initial rate of enhancement is coded by color intensity: a slow rate is coded to dark; a fast rate, bright. The postinitial enhancement change is coded by color hue: blue for increasing signal intensity, green for plateau, and red for decrease in signal intensity. Malignant lesions showed a significantly higher number of bright-red (P=0.004) and medium-red (P<0.001) pixels than benign lesions. Benign lesions showed significantly more blue pixels than did malignant lesions (P=0.010). Of the 75 lesions, 72 (96%) showed heterogeneous distribution of pixel color hue. Quantitative parametric analysis of contrast kinetics in lesions can replace the subjective manual region of interest (ROI) method and makes a step toward standardization of MR mammography. It allows quantitative evaluation of different contrast kinetics parameters in contrast-enhanced breast lesions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heywang SH, Bassermann R, Fenzl G, Nathrat W, Hahn D, Beck R, Krischke I, Eiermann W (1987) MRI of the breast: histopathologic correlation. Eur J Radiol 7:175–182

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fischer U, Kopka L, Brinck U, Korabiowska M, Schauer A, Grabbe E (1997) Prognostic value of contrast-enhanced MR mammography in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 7:1002–1005

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuhl CK (2000) MRI of breast tumors. Eur Radiol 10:46–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, Leutner C, Wardelmann E, Gieseke J, Schild HH (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211(1):101–110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Orel SG, Schnall MD (2001) MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 220(1):13–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Agoston AT, Daniel BL, Herfkens RJ, Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL, Heiss SG, Sawyer-Glover AM (2001) Intensity-modulated parametric mapping for simultaneous display of rapid dynamic and high-spatial-resolution breast MR imaging data. Radiographics 21(1):217–226

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Szabo BK, Wiberg MK, Bone B, Aspelin P (2004) Application of artificial neural networks to the analysis of dynamic MR imaging features of the breast. Eur Radiol 14(7):1217–1225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Oshida K, Nagashima T, Ueda T, Yagata H, Tanabe N, Nakano S, Nikaidou T, Funatsu H, Hashimoto H, Miyazaki M (2005) Pharmacokinetic analysis of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using dynamic MR mammography. Eur Radiol 15(7):1353–1360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vomweg TW, Teifke A, Kunz RP, Hintze C, Hlawatsch A, Kern A, Kreitner KF, Thelen M (2004) Combination of low and high resolution sequences in two orientations for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: more than a compromise. Eur Radiol 14(10):1732–1742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kuhl CK, Schild HH, Morakkabati N (2005) Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Radiology 236(3):789–800

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E (2002) Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol 12(5):1087–1092

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Orel SG (1999) Differentiating benign from malignant enhancing lessions identified at MR imaging of the breast: Are time signal-intensity curves an accurate predictor? Radiology 211:5–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Lucidarme O, Cluzel P, Janaud G, Finet JF, Tardivon A, Masselot J, Vanel D (1994) Nonpalpable breast tumors: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 191(3):625–631

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Boetes C, Barentsz JO, Mus RD, van der Sluis RF, van Erning LJ, Hendriks JH, Holland R, Ruys SH (1994) MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced TurboFLASH subtraction technique. Radiology 193(3):777–781

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Orel SG, Schnall MD, LiVolsi VA, Troupin RH (1994) Suspicious breast lesions: MR imaging with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 190 (2):485–493

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mussurakis S, Buckley DL, Horsman A (1997) Dynamic MRI of invasive breast cancer: assessment of three region-of-interest analysis methods. J Comput Assist Tomogr 21(3):431–438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoffmann U, Brix G, Knopp MV, Hess T, Lorenz WJ (1995) Pharmacokinetic mapping of the breast: a new method for dynamic MR mammography. Magn Reson Med 33(4):506–514

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Parker GJ, Suckling J, Tanner SF, Padhani AR, Revell PB, Husband JE, Leach MO (1997) Probing tumor microvascularity by measurement, analysis and display of contrast agent uptake kinetics. J Magn Reson Imaging 7(3):564–674

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Degani H, Gusis V, Weinstein D, Fields S, Strano S (1997) Mapping pathophysiological features of breast tumors by MRI at high spatial resolution. Natl Med 3(7):780–782

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Furman-Haran E, Grobgeld D, Margalit R, Degani H (1998) Response of MCF7 human breast cancer to tamoxifen: evaluation by the three-time-point, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging method. Clin Cancer Res 4:2299–2304

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Furman-Haran E, Grobgeld D, Kelcz F, Degani H (2001) Critical role of spatial resolution in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:862–867

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tofts PS, Kermode AG (1991) Measurement of the blood-brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging 1 Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med 17(2):357–367

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tofts PS, Berkowitz B, Schnall MD (1995) Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd-DTPA enhancement in breast tumors using a permeability model. Magn Reson Med 33(4):564–568

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kelcz F, Furman-Haran E, Grobgeld D, Degani H (2002) Clinical testing of high-spatial-resolution parametric contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:1492–1585

    Google Scholar 

  25. Yeh ED, Slanetz PJ, Edmister WB, Talele A, Monticciolo D, Kopans DB (2003) Invasive lobular carcinoma: spectrum of enhancement and morphology on magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J 9(1):13–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E, Verslegers I, Biltjes I, Leyman P, Colpaert C, Thienpont L, Van den Haute J, Gillardin JP, Tjalma W, Buytaert P, De Schepper A (2004) Preoperative breast MRI in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur Radiol 14(7):1209–1216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hauth EAM, Stockamp C, Maderwald S, Mühler A, Kimmig R, Jaeger H, Barkhausen J, Forsting M (2006) Evaluation of the three-time-point method for diagnosis of breast lesions in contrast-enhanced MR mammography. Clin Imaging 30(3):160–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstr 55, 45122, Essen, Germany

    E. A. M. Hauth, S. Maderwald, C. Stockamp & M. Forsting

  2. Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology and Nuclear Medicine, Marien-Hospital Wesel, Wesel, Germany

    H. Jaeger

  3. CAD Sciences White Plains, New York, USA

    A. Mühler

  4. Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

    R. Kimmig

Authors
  1. E. A. M. Hauth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Jaeger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Maderwald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Stockamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Mühler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Kimmig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Forsting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. A. M. Hauth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hauth, E.A.M., Jaeger, H., Maderwald, S. et al. Evaluation of quantitative parametric analysis for characterization of breast lesions in contrast-enhanced MR mammography. Eur Radiol 16, 2834–2841 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0348-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0348-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation